WA v Pollock

(2009) 195 A Crim R 527; [2009] WASCA 96

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Summing up
4. › Duty of trial judge to charge jury
5. › Duty to relate the law to the issues in the case
6. › Whether obligation to relate the evidence and the law to the issues
7. › Whether trial judge sufficiently related the relevant law and the evidence to the issues
8. › Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 112
1. Criminal Law
2. › Trial
3. › Summing up
4. › Duty to put defence case to jury
5. › Whether defence case sufficiently put
6. › Complex fraud trial
7. › Whether single paragraph summary adequate
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Proviso
4. › Substantial miscarriage of justice
5. › Serious breach of presuppositions of trial process
6. › Whether errors so fundamental as to exclude application of proviso
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4)

Quick Take

Under s 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), trial judges do not have a general duty to address on the facts in every case, but where a case is complex, the trial judge must present to the jury the issues of fact, relate the evidence to those issues, and fairly put the defence case. A single paragraph summary of the defence case in a complex fraud trial following a two-week hearing is inadequate. Such failures may constitute a serious breach of the presuppositions of the trial process, excluding the proviso.